Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal was filed by the original plaintiffs (appellants) against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court dismissing their suit for cancellation of a sale deed and perpetual injunction. The suit property was agricultural land Gut No.94 admeasuring 1 H 54 R situated at Mauje Saigaon, owned by plaintiff No.1, who was the father of plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.2 was married to the defendant (respondent). The plaintiffs alleged that after the defendant lodged a criminal complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with 34 IPC against them (in which they were later acquitted), the defendant's father coerced plaintiff No.1 to execute a sale deed in favour of the defendant on 18-08-2008, threatening that only then would the defendant return for cohabitation. The plaintiffs claimed the sale deed was without consideration and obtained by coercion. The defendant denied these allegations and asserted that the sale deed was executed voluntarily for a valid consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. The trial court, after evaluating evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove coercion or lack of consideration. The first appellate court affirmed this decision. In the second appeal, the High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The court noted that both lower courts had concurrently found that the plaintiffs did not prove their case and that the defendant had proved execution and consideration. The High Court held that the findings were based on evidence and not perverse, and no substantial question of law was involved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as the findings of fact by both lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence. The appellant failed to show any perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Contract Law - Sale Deed - Cancellation - Burden of Proof - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - The plaintiffs alleged that the sale deed was executed under coercion and without consideration, but the trial court and first appellate court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove these allegations. The defendant proved execution and consideration. The High Court upheld these findings. (Paras 4-9) C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Onus to Prove Fraud/Coercion - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 101-103 - The court reiterated that the burden to prove fraud or coercion lies on the person alleging it. The plaintiffs did not discharge this burden. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court are upheld.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- interference limited to perversity
- burden of proof on plaintiff to prove fraud/coercion
- sale deed for valid consideration
